Transfer orders are reviewable only for mala fides, statutory violations, incompetence, or extreme hardship.

The petitioners in four writ petitions challenged transfer orders issued by their respective departments, raising various grounds

The High Court heard the petitions together because they involved common questions of law and fact

It found that none of the recognised grounds for judicial review of the impugned transfers had been established

1. Whether the impugned transfer orders disclosed a ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

2. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to seek administrative consideration of their grievances while the transfer orders were temporarily held in abeyance

Transfer is an incidence of service; an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a place of choice, and the employer may transfer employees to meet administrative exigencies and public interest

Relying on Shilpi Bose & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, the Court reiterated that transfer orders should not ordinarily be interfered with by courts or tribunals

Judicial review under Article 226 is limited and does not permit the Court to act as an appellate authority on the convenience of a transfer

The Court identified the permissible grounds for interference as mala fides or bias specifically pleaded and proved, breach of a statutory provision or rule, lack of competence of the transferring authority, or—only in a rare case—extreme hardship arising from a life-threatening disease affecting service conditions

Personal inconvenience, hardship and long stay at a posting are ordinarily matters for the authorities, not the courts

The Court treated the petitions as challenges to transfer orders and applied the narrow grounds of review set out above.

It concluded that none of those grounds had been made out in the cases before it

It therefore declined to review the merits or convenience of the transfers, while allowing the petitioners to submit representations so their grievances could be considered by the competent authorities

The temporary abeyance of the orders was intended to allow that process to take place; the Court expressly left the merits of the parties’ cases open

It permitted the petitioners to file detailed representations within two weeks, which the competent authorities were directed to decide expeditiously, preferably within the following two weeks, by reasoned and speaking orders

The impugned transfers were to remain in abeyance for four weeks, and the petitioners were not to be compelled to relieve during that period; this direction did not apply to anyone who had already joined the new posting

If a representation was rejected, the respondents could give effect to the transfer, and disciplinary action could follow if the employee then failed to join

The Court expressed no view on the merits of the grievances